| 摘要註: |
為了保障原住民學生於高級中等以上學校的入學及就學機會，現行原住民族教育法第16條之規定因而授權教育部訂定原住民學生升學優待及原住民公費留學辦法加以規範。該現行原住民學生升學優待及原住民公費留學辦法第3條第1項第4款第1目的規定針對原住民學生明定了其報考大學時的升學考試優待惠方式。然而，上開規定的作法，卻是以種族為分類標準，而對於原住民者與非原住民者做成不同的差別待遇。亦即在上開規定下，原住民學生報考大學時原則上可享有優惠，而非原住民學生（若不具有其他升學考試優惠身分者）則無法享有。則此一規定究竟有哪些具體問題存在？與憲法保障基本權利的理念與意旨是否有所抵觸？誠為一個值得深入研究的問題。 因此，本文嘗試以優惠性差別待遇與多元文化主義等理論為取徑方法，而試圖從憲法平等權觀點探討我國現行原住民學生大學升學考試優惠規定所可能產生之問題以及其因應之對策。為此，本文的基本架構如下： 第一章緒論，主要在論述本文的研究緣起以及問題的提出、限縮本文的研究範圍與研究方法，並就本文主要相關的名詞界定與翻譯等其他問題及本文架構先為說明。 第二章除了說明原住民族教育法第16條以及原住民學生升學優待及原住民公費留學辦法第3條所引發的疑慮外，並分別介紹及觀察比較原住民學生及其他五種特種學生的大學升學考試優惠相關規定，初步指出我國現行原住民學生大學升學考試優惠規定（即原住民學生升學優待及原住民公費留學辦法第3條第1項第4款第1目之規定）的若干問題，而後更深入地指出我國現行原住民學生大學升學考試優惠規定的兩個重要疑慮所在。 第三章除了概述美國聯邦最高法院教育入學領域種族優惠性差別待遇案件的重要性之外，並說明美國法上優惠性差別待遇措施的意義及起源，而後再分別介紹Regent of the University of California v. Bakke案、Gratz v. Bollinger案、Grutter v. Bollinger案及Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No.1案等四個美國聯邦最高法院教育入學領域種族優惠性差別待遇案件的事實背景、訴訟經過與判決結果，以及該等案件的法院意見和與入學申請許可方案所採取的手段有關之協同或不同意見，然後再說明上開美國聯邦最高法院優惠性差別待遇案件在我國現行原住民學生大學升學考試優惠規定的檢討上可以提供如何的借鏡。 第四章除了概述何以會以Will Kymlicka的多元文化主義理論中有關於區別少數民族與移民團體間的不同做為本章的重心之外，並介紹Kymlicka的多元文化主義理論在西方政治哲學領域中的理論定位，以及該理論建構的目的，而後再分別說明該理論中有關少數民族與移民團體間最主要的不同所在，即少數民族與移民團體在本質及希望與主流社會發生的關係、社會性文化、團體區別權此三點上有顯著的不同，然後再說明Kymlicka多元文化主義理論的上開部分在我國現行原住民學生大學升學考試優惠規定的檢討上可以給予如何的啟發。 第五章除了概述有說明原住民學生大學升學考試優惠規定應如何進行司法違憲審查的必要之外，並簡介我國過去曾審查過優惠性差別待遇措施的司法院大法官釋字第649號解釋，而後再對於我國現行原住民大學升學考試的優惠規定進行司法違憲審查的操作，包括指出我國原住民大學升學考試的優惠規定到底侵害了何人的何種基本權利、進行形式合憲性與實質合憲性的檢驗，並且在操作檢討之後，提出本文所建議可以合憲的原住民學生大學升學考試優惠方式。 最後，再於第六章中提出本文的結論及建議。 In order to protect the matriculation and education opportunities of aboriginal students in high school and higher education thereof, the Ministry of Education is consequently authorized to conclude aboriginal-favored university entrance provisions and government scholarship to study abroad for aboriginal students by the 16th stipulation of present Aboriginal Education Statute. The section 1, paragraph 4, chapter 1, article 3 of present Schemes for aboriginal-favored university entrance provisions and government scholarship to study abroad for aboriginal students has clearly stipulated the regulations for their college entrance examination preferential treatment. However, the classification criterion of above stipulation is by races, and there are different treatments for aboriginal and non aboriginal person, which means that the preferential treatment of college entrance examination is principally for aboriginal students not for non aboriginal students (if they do not have other entrance examination preferential status). Then what are the specific problems of this stipulation and whether it conflict with the idea and meaning of the constitutional protected human rights are prudential questions worthy of further study. Therefore, this thesis attempts to study the problems that may derived from the present aboriginal-favored university entrance provisions in Taiwan and responding strategies thereof from a perspective on constitutional equal protection by the affirmative action and multiculturalism approaches. To this, the basic construction of this thesis is as follows: Chapter 1, introduction, mainly expounds the origin of this study and raised questions, restricts the research scope and methods of this thesis, defines terms, translation and other issues related to this thesis, and clarify this framework firstly. Addition to describing the apprehension caused by the 16th stipulation of Aboriginal Education Statute and the 3rd article of Schemes for Aboriginal-favored University Entrance Provisions and Government Scholarship to Study Abroad for Aboriginal Students, the second chapter also respectively introduces and observes the comparison with aboriginal students and other five special students in the relevant university entrance provisions. It initially points out some problems about the present regulations of aboriginal-favored university entrance provisions (i.e. the section 1, paragraph 4, chapter 1, article 3 of present Schemes for Aboriginal-favored University Entrance Provisions and Government Scholarship to Study Abroad for Aboriginal Students), and then thoroughly explores two important concerns about the present regulations of aboriginal-favored university entrance provisions. Besides outlining the importance of cases of race-based affirmative action in education of the U.S. Federal Supreme Court, the chapter 3 explains the meaning and origin of affirmative action in U.S., and then respectively introduces the background, litigation processes, and conclusions of the four cases of race-based affirmative action in education of the U.S. Federal Supreme Court- Regent of the University of California v. Bakke, Gratz v. Bollinger, Grutter v. Bollinger, and Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No.1. It also introduces court opinions of these cases and the concurring opinions or dissenting opinions about the strategy of admission programs. Afterwards, it clarifies that how we can learn from the above cases of affirmative action of the U.S. Federal Supreme Court. |